stock market plummeted and to show people they were on an even keel, nixon stepped in. >> despite this, eisenhower made the decision to seek re-election and we have a very brief clip in the 1956 campaign ad looking again how mamie appealed to women during the 1956 election. >> so much of your future rests with the women of our country. they are the home makers, the whole family unit revolves around them. everything that affects the family's wealth affects them first and everything in the family's life benefits from their influence. they do the buying and seeing that everyone is well clothed and well fed. they are the custodian of its values and aspirations for the future and there lies the training of our young people for whom they pass the rich heritage

of our nation. it's love for peace and justice and it's passion for freedom. the women of our country swept dwight d. eisenhower into office four years ago and they will probably decide the election this time and they like ike. here's someone else they like, too. ike's beloved mamie whose smile and modest ti and easy natural charm make her the ideal first lady. let's keep our first lady in the white house for four more years. november 6, vote for dwight d. eisenhower. >> and the american public did. they served out the next four years and 1960, the election brought john kennedy into the house. the eisenhowers went back to private life back to gettysburg.

we are going back right now. >> and for 19 years mamie eisenhower lived in this house and nearly all of her life had this picture on every dresser in every house. what is that? >> ike's senior picture from west point and gave her that photograph while they were dating and says to the dearest and sweetest girl in the entire world. >> a pink phone and lots of pink things. now to an explosion of pink, the master bedroom. >> i think the dec omp r in this room is telling of their lives together. every bedroom they had painted the walls green and decorated pink. think this is real love of a five-star general. >> the original bedspread and this is what they shared until 1969 when ike died.

the breakfast set on the bed. >> mamie spent most mornings in bed. she suffered from rue matic fever. she would have breakfast in bed. a special breakfast set and have her breakfast here and would answer letters, plan her agenda for the day and meet with staff members or the cook to plan the day. >> 1979, she had a stroke right there. >> she had the stroke that would end her life. they found her and taken to walter reed where she passed away in november. had the stroke in september. >> the public, will they see this? >> see every room and much more. en from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. >> just off the edge of the

war battlefield. >> and our thanks to the staff of the gettysburg and also to the eisenhower library in kansas. there is a book that we have. we have worked with the white house historical association wa available this special edition of the very popular first ladies book and available, go to c-span's web site and see a tab for first ladies and then a tab for shop and selling it to you at cost so if you would like this series and learn more about the first ladies, it's available to you. each week we have a special featured item and this week's award from the american heart association. surprising as a big smoker as volunteer for the year after

ike's heart attack. we have a couple minutes left. her final years and her availab how do we wrap this up? >> i think perhaps one of the -- st telling, she didn't think about having a legacy. she thought about what she had done as the first lady, as an important job. her contribution to american life and probably her legacy would be what she said to barbara walters in that one interview, that when asked how do you want to be remembered, and she said, just as a good friend. and i think that's how she felt about the american people that she was a good friend. >> and the american people returned that? >> absolutely. >> and it is a generational change. we will be moving into the

youngest couple moving into the white house with the kennedys and we look forward to learning about how the country continues to change. that's it for our mamie eisenhower program. our special guests, we thank them for your work. your book is available. the general's first lady. if folks would like to learn more. thank you so much for your time. great to have you in the audience. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by ational captioning institute]

>> join us next week for our look at first lady jacqueline kennedy with tv becoming central to american life, she was defined as never before by images, a young family entering the white house, international fame and the tragedy of a

grieving widow all within three years. flew ept in spanish and french, she charmed world leaders, president kennedy referring to himself as the man who accompanied jacqueline kennedy to paris. . 00 eastern on c-span we are offering a special edition of the book "first ladies of the united states of america" presenting a portrait of each first lady and comments of noted historians on the roles of first ladies. t's available at $12.95 plus shipping. get your copy on c-span. more about the first ladies, including a special section "welcome to the white house," produced by the white house historical association and chronicles life of each of the

first ladies. fires out more at c-span .orgslash firstladies. >> we bring public events directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, conferences, and offering complete coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local satellite provider and now you can watch us in hd. >> jonathan karl asked jay carney about the enrollment problems. here's some of that exchange. >> the answer is yes, as was reported widely at the time. the whole point is that c.m.f.

is what g an account led to the bulk of issues. initially, on the launch of the marketplaces on october 1, you were not able to do that by phone. and in response to the trouble that users were having online, the unacceptable trouble they ere having, we bulked up the staffing of call centers and made it possible for individuals to call and enroll and sign up and bypass the creation of an account so that could be handled septemberers. the applications are processed through healthcare.gov and we it.working to fix

the user experience was to alleviate the frustration that so many americans were having online and take that frustration away from them and allow a live person to handle their questions and their sign-ups and enrollment for them. it was a known fact at the time. we never pretended otherwise. as you know, because i know you talked to people about this that -- the whole point was to beef up the calling centers to give the american people information and a way to avoid the frustration they were having online. >> but, jay, i want to go back to exactly what the president said, you can bypass the web site and it can be done in 25 minutes. these memos say we are stuck in the same cue because they have to go through the same portal. >> john, i get it, but the person who calls isn't the one who continues to wait after the application is fulfilled.

>> the president said you can apply within 25 minutes, that is not true. >> there is a reason -- you call up, you give them the information and get the questions answered that you need answered and then they take over from that and find out what you are eligible for and process goes forward. once your application is processed. the point was to relieve some of the frustration that americans were understandably experiencing. >> what takes 25 minutes? >> if this is an individual, the interaction you have when you ive the information and bypass the creation of an account and you sign up and to enroll, you would give them the information you need. that would be processed and you would find out how much you qualified for and be enrolled that way. but john, we have never said that the end point of the

process wouldn't have to go through healthcare.gov. >> you said you can enroll over the phone and enroll in person. on october 23, you said there are four ways to enroll in the exchanges. you said there are four ways to enroll in the exchanges at local health care septemberers by mail or web sites. it all has to go through healthcare.gov. >> you can have this -- i'm trying to understand why the president gave the american public that they could -- told the american people -- >> the paperwork is filled out for them and the process is taken over from there. when the paperwork is processed. they don't have to go online to do it. that was the whole purpose of while we were fixing the web

site making it meet the standards that we set that americans have the alternative way with beefed-up staffing and allowing new rules to allow individuals at the call-in centers. i think -- i'm not sure what you think you discovered here, john. >> you bypass the web site. you said all have to go through the web site. >> we have been through this. you call and have a conversation with someone at the center and give them your information and rocess it for you and bypass where the problems were happening. it has to go through healthcare.gov. i give up. >> one more thing. tell me if this is accurate, october 24. a person on the other end of the

phone can get questions answered up to 150 languages as well as walk somebody all the way through the process and enroll at the end of the day. >> at the end of the day. you give somebody your information, when you call up and sign up for something and somebody takes your information and they process that, they process whatever it is you are signing up for and enrolling in. they can do that once you are off the phone. that's the point. relieve americans who are frustrated -- >> enrolled at the end of the day, is that right? >> i'm sorry i can't say the same for you. >> jay carney taking questions about health care enrollment problems. watch all of our programs at span.org >> johnson and johnson agreed to

pay more than $2 billion for marketing drugs for uses that were never approved. attorney general holder spoke about the settlement. his briefing was 30 minutes. >> good morning, thank you all for being here. i am going to be joined by the associate attorney general, assistant attorney general, the united states attorney for the eastern district of pennsylvania, the u.s. attorney for the district of massachusetts, first assistant united states attorney for the northern district of california, and the deputy inspector general for investigations of the department of health and human services. we are here today to announce that johnson and johnson and three of its subsidiaries have agreed to pay more than $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil claims they marketed prescription drugs for uses that

were never approved, safe, or effective. there were kickbacks to physicians and pharmacies to prescribing these drugs. through these alleged acts from these companies, they lined their pockets with the money of american taxpayers and private insurance industry. they drove up costs for everyone in the health care system and negatively impacted the long-term solvency of the central healthcare programs by medicare. this global settlement resolves multiple investigations involving the ente psychotic drugs and other johnson & ohnson products. the settlement also addresses allegations of conduct that recklessly put at risk the health of some of the most vulnerable members of our society including children, the elderly, and the disabled. the criminal information that was filed today alleges that the johnson and johnson subsidiary, janssen violated a drug for

unapproved uses. clearly, they admit they use this drug to healthcare providers for the treatment of psychotic symptoms and associated behaviors. it was exhibited by the elderly, non-schizophrenic patients who suffered from dementia. even though the drug was proved -- approved only to treat schizophrenia. and separately filed complaints, johnson and johnson and janssen promoted ripodol to retirement homes. the companies allegedly downgraded the serious health risks associated with the drug including risk of stroke in elderly patients and even paid doctors to induce doctors to prescribe these drugs.

this was part of a scheme and the company allegedly paid kickbacks to the nation's largest long-term care pharmacies whose pharmacists were supposed to provide an independent view of the medications. instead, at the company's behest, the pharmacists allegedly recommended rispodol for nursing home patients that exhibited symptoms of dementia and alzheimer's disease. this brought in millions of dollars in false claims for these drugs. to resolve allegations stemming from the improper promotion of rispodol, janssen pharmaceuticals will plead guilty and pay $400 million in criminal fines as well as forfeitures. johnson and johnson and janssen pharmaceuticals have agreed to

pay $1.2 billion to resolve their civil liabilities under the false claims act. johnson & johnson will pay an additional $149 billion to resolve claims relating to alleged kickbacks for the long-term care pharmacies. in addition to these claims, we allege that johnson and johnson as well as its subsidiary, promoted the heart failure drug for off label uses that caused patients to submit to costly confusions of the drug without credible scientific evidence it would have any health benefit for those patients. in a separate matter that was resolved in 2009, stiles pleaded hilty to miss branding and paid a criminal fine of 85 million dollars. to resolve the current allegations, the companies have agreed to pay an additional 184 billion dollars. this significant settlement was made possible by the relentless

investigative and enforcement efforts of dedicated men and women serving as part of the healthcare fraud prevention and enforcement team or heat, which kathleen sebelius and i launched more than four years ago to recover taxpayer dollars and keep our people safe and to aggressively punish fraud and misconduct wherever it is found. the alleged conduct is shameful and it is unacceptable. it displayed a reckless indifference to the safety of the american people and the constituted an abuse of the public trust showing a blatant disregard for systems and laws designed to protect the as our filings made clear, these are not victimless crimes. americans trust medications prescribed for their parents and grandparents, for their children and for themselves. they are selected because they are in the patient's best interest.

the laws enacted by congress and the enforcement efforts of the fda provide important safeguards to ensure that the drugs are proof -- are approved for uses that are safe as well as effective. efforts by drug companies to introduce their drugs into interstate commerce for unapproved uses subvert those laws. likewise, payment of kickbacks undermines the independent medical judgment of healthcare providers. it creates financial incentives to increase the use of certain drugs, potentially putting the help of some patients at risk. every time pharmaceutical companies engage in this type of conduct, they corrupt medical decisions by healthcare providers. they jeopardize the public health and they take money out of the taxpayers pockets. this settlement demonstrates that the department of justice and health and human services are working alongside a variety of federal, state, and local partners will sibley not

tolerate such activities. no company is above the law. my colleagues and i are determined to keep moving forward abiding by the facts and the law to hold these corporations accountable. we want to safeguard the american people and prevent this conduct from occurring in the future. this announcement marks another step forward in our strategic, comprehensive, and effective approach to fraud prevention. we can all be encouraged by the actions we have taken and the results we have obtained in recent years. but we cannot yet be satisfied. that is why here in washington and across the country, this critical work will continue. i would like to thank everyone who made this settlement possible. i want to recognize the leaders, prosecutors, trial attorneys, the investigators, and staff of the civil division here in washington as well as our united

states attorneys offices in philadelphia, boston, and san francisco. i am grateful for the committed efforts of our partners in the department of health and human services, particularly in the office of the inspector general. as well as the food and drug administration and many other agencies that contributed to this outcome. i want to thank each of the state attorneys general and medicaid fraud units across the country for contributing to this investigation. we would be happy to take any questions you may have at this time. i would like to direct the initial questions to the announcement we just made. >> how many patients received these drugs? >> with regard to the number of patients, i don't have that figure. with rick guard to the false claims allegations, it covers a 10 year.

rom 1999-2009. with regard to the criminal misdemeanor charge, it covers a little over a one-year period from march of 2002 and carries on until december of 2003. it covers a time period when the risperdol label was linked to schizophrenia. with regard to the criminal >> did the risk ever turn into actual harm? >> with regard to the evidence in this case, we don't have evidence of actual patient harm. what we have are statements and representation that indicate that risk was being minimize with regard to the use of the product in the elderly. especially with regard to the risk of stroke and with regard to diabetes and things of that nature. it is incumbent on the government to take a look at

these type of behavior is to make sure we are prosecuting this case appropriately to make sure of efficiency. >> one thing that ties the pieces of this case together is the fact that all of that relates to conduct that undermines the regulatory system that has been set up to protect the safety of the medicines we take. part of it relates to activities of the company in marketing actual harm? efforts but also, the omnicare portion of the case relates to kickbacks. that were pai which have the potential to undermine the medical judgment of medical professionals making decisions about individual patients. we think it's important that we nforce this program, the federal fda administers him a to safeguard medical judgments that re made in this country. >> are there any remaining claims the government has against johnson & johnson -- related charges? or is this settled, all the claims?

>> this is a global resolution with regard to the drugs we announced. this is based upon the evidence we evaluated and made a determination as to what the result would be and we have now reached a global resolution so we can move onto other cases. >> how many physicians were involved in the kickbacks? how much was paid to them? >> we do not have that specific umber. a lot of what had occurred was that j&j and janssen paid the kickbacks to omnicare and on the care in 2009 settled charges against it in which it had accepted kickbacks and had taken

max to nursing homes that were tilizing omnicare. the pharmacy had prescription drugs in the kickbacks were in the form of regrets that went to omnicare as well as fees that were supposedly paying for data and to also payments that were disguised to look like educational funding, in particular for a pharmacist who were used to induce doctors to prescribe certain medications and in particular, risperdol to seniors in nursing homes. >> the doctors were made a blanket payment? >> i believe the payments went to the doctors on the basis of speaking fees for certain presentations that were made answered meetings that were attended. >> just to reiterate -- we are

looking for a case where someone has died or an elderly patient has been injured. you don't know of one? you don't know of one? is that accurate? >> i believe that's correct. >> there is a case last week hat held the first amendment protected off label marketing by drug companies. can you explain if that's does it was wrong and why didn't they department pursue that elsewhere and are you pursuing these cases now? >> in that particular case, the conduct that was looked at, the court determined it could be freedom of speech but that's not what we are behind. in this case, we are not looking at off label marketing in terms of alleging certain factors that are accurate. in particular, one of the key drugs that that were highlighted, risperdol, had been approved for use of schizophrenia and only that

using at the company promoted it and sold it and induced others to buy it through kickback schemes and other inducements to treat the elderly who were suffering from alzheimer's or other forms of dementia, to treat children and to treat the disabled. when you promote drugs for purposes that they are not intended for and have not been approved by the fda, we don't believe that is a violation of the first amendment. >> isn't this off label marketing? that's exactly what it is, isn't it? >> what we are prosecuting is promoting drugs for purposes that have not been approved, that have not been shown to be safe or even effective. that's what this case is about. >> the statute requires that for intended uses, the labeling for the drug provide directions